AURORA | For the first time in more than 15 years, members of a state-appointed performance commission have suggested voters in the 18th Judicial District should not retain a judge.
District Court Judge Phillip Douglass did not “meet performance standards” during his time on the bench, according to a report compiled by the commission on judicial performance for the 18th Judicial District.
Members of the 10-person commission voted 6-3 to slap Douglass with a no-confidence flag on this year’s ballot. One member of the commission recused themselves from the vote.
In a report describing their findings, the commission said Douglass “is often too familiar, at times making inappropriate comments, blurring necessary boundaries, and failing to maintain proper decorum and the appearance of neutrality.”
In a 2018 survey rating Douglass’ performance, 84 respondents gave him a combined overall score of 3.45 out of a possible 4. Attorneys responding to the survey granted Douglass an overall score of 2.35, while non-attorneys gave him a score of 3.71. Jurors who were surveyed gave the judge a nearly perfect score.
Those averages are an improvement from a similar survey that was administered to people who had interacted with Douglass in the courtroom last year. Douglass’ overall score from his 2017 performance report was 3.24, although that poll was compiled using about half of the responses as this year’s survey.
Despite Douglass’ numerical improvement in survey responses, the performance commission claimed Douglass has not made an effort to better his affect on the bench.
“The Commission … is troubled by a notable decline in his judicial temperament, demeanor, diligence, and communication ratings in his 2018 evaluation,” according to the commission’s narrative. “The Commission is also concerned that Judge Douglass has not taken sufficient steps to improve in response to constructive criticism and feedback, particularly with regard to his temperament and judicial demeanor.”
Douglass dismissed the criticisms as political vengeance orchestrated by attorneys who he had disagreements with.
“A few privileged lawyers vowed to seek my removal based upon perceived slights early after my appointment,” Douglass wrote. “Comments to the commission show that these lawyers swayed opposition from the commission and others. This is unfortunate.”
Douglass said Monday he is barred from providing additional comment regarding his election bid unless there is open and active opposition. He said the commission’s report does not meet the threshold for opposition.
Of the 16 attorneys who had enough professional experience with Douglass to respond to the recent survey, 44 percent said Douglass met standards and 44 percent said he was inadequate. The remaining 13 percent of respondents did not have an opinion.
The 68 non-attorneys who were surveyed overwhelmingly approved of Douglass, according to the reports. Non-attorney respondents rated Douglass higher than the state average for district court judges in every category, with 93 percent of those surveyed saying the judge met standards.
The performance commission comprises six non-attorneys and four attorneys. Members are appointed by the governor, president of the state Senate, House speaker, and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. The four attorneys on the current commission for the 18th Judicial District are: Ryan Call, Lisabeth Perez Castle, Valerie Garcia and Laura Page. They were appointed by Senate President Kevin Grantham (R-Cañon City), Speaker of the state House Crisanta Duran (D-Denver), Gov. John Hickenlooper, and former Chief Justice Nancy Rice, respectively.
Ranking members of the commission did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
When voting, performance commissions form their conclusions using a variety of factors, including: surveys from court users, interviews with the judge, observations in the courtroom, and reviewing written opinions and decisions.
Gov. Hickenlooper appointed Douglass to his position in June 2015. Prior to being appointed, Douglass practiced mainly employment law at several Denver firms, and one shop in Houston in the early 1990s, according to the Governor’s office. Douglass got his undergraduate degree at Brigham Young University and graduated from Cornell Law School in New York state in 1992.
District Court judges serve an initial term of two years following their appointment. If re-elected by voters, they then serve six-year terms, but must retire by age 72. Terms vary for county and appeals court judges, and Supreme Court justices.
There are 25 district court judges and nine magistrates in the 18th district, according to court files. Nearly 31,000 new cases were filed in the local district courts last year. There were 245 district court trials in 2017.
Among the 123 other judges up for retention across the state’s 22 judicial districts this year, only one other candidate did not meet performance standards, according to performance commission reports. Commissioners from the 4th Judicial District voted 4-1 to levy a title of “does not meet performance standards” against El Paso County Judge Edward Acker. One member of that commission recused themselves and three members declined to vote because they couldn’t attend an interview with the judge.
The last judge from the 18th Judicial District to receive a vote of no-confidence from a performance commission was former state senator and current Aurora City Attorney Stephen Ruddick. A former county judge, Ruddick was re-elected in 2002 despite the commission’s recommendation against retaining him. He retired from the bench in 2006.
Charlie Richardson, current Aurora city councilman and former chief city attorney, rehired Ruddick in the city attorney’s office after he left the bench. Richardson, who was the city’s top lawyer for nearly three decades, lauded the state’s judicial review process and said Ruddick continues to excel in the city attorney’s office despite unceremoniously retiring from his judgeship.
He added that it’s common for spats between judges and attorneys to spill onto the ballot in the form of “failure to meet standards” tags, which were formerly listed as “do not retain.”
“I’ve seen that before,” Richardson said. “It’s a defense. When you’re on the negative end of that process, it’s pretty common for the particular judge to say that a group of lawyers are treating him unfairly.”
Ruddick did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Historically, voters have often ignored commissioners’ recommendations against retention. In 2016, two judges received “do not retain” labels: Judge Michael Schiferl of the southeast 16th Judicial District and Judge Jill-Ellyn Straus of the 17th Judicial District that covers Adams County and Broomfield. Voters chose to retain Schiferl and oust Straus.
In 2014, commissioners suggested not retaining three county judges around the state. Voters re-elected two of them.